4.7 Article

Protein metabolism in leg muscle following an endotoxin injection in healthy volunteers

期刊

CLINICAL SCIENCE
卷 118, 期 5-6, 页码 421-427

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/CS20090332

关键词

endotoxin; phenylalanine; protein turnover; sepsis; skeletal muscle

资金

  1. Swedish Medical Research Council [04210, 14244]
  2. European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN)
  3. Czech Ministry of Health [MZO 00179906]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The human endotoxin model has been used to study the early phase of sepsis. The aim of the present study was to assess leg muscle protein kinetics after an endotoxin challenge given to healthy human volunteers. Six healthy male subjects were studied in the post-absorptive state before and during 4 h following an intravenous endotoxin bolus (4 ng/kg of body weight). Primed continuous infusion of [H-2(5)]phenylalanine and [H-2(3)]3-methylhistidine in combination with sampling from the radial artery, femoral vein and muscle tissue were used to assess leg muscle protein kinetics. Both two- and three-compartment models were used to calculate protein kinetics. In addition 26S proteasome activity and protein ubiquitination were assessed. An increase in the net release of phenylalanine from the leg following the endotoxin challenge was observed; however, this phenylalanine originates from the free intracellular pool and not from protein. Net protein balance was unchanged, whereas both protein synthesis and breakdown were decreased. Degradation rates of contractile proteins were not affected by endotoxin, as indicated by an unchanged rate of appearance of 3-methylhistidine from leg muscle. In addition, proteasome activity and protein ubiquitination were unaffected by endotoxaemia. In conclusion, intravenous endotoxin administration to healthy volunteers resulted in an increased release of free phenylalanine from skeletal muscle, whereas protein balance was unaffected. Both protein synthesis and breakdown were decreased to a similar extent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据